1
18 1
18
ORiginAl ARticle
INTRODUCTION
Total hip arthroplasty in young (below the age of 65) and active individuals remains as a challenge to an orthopaedic surgeon. The excellent outcomes in older individuals are not confirmed in the younger ones(1,2,3) .
Over the last decade, an increasing interest has been noticed on the hip resurfacing technique for treating younger and more active patients with hip diseases. This technique is aimed to the preservation of the femoral neck and of the bone stocks, targeting better biomechanical outcomes, similar to the original hip(4,5).
Previous studies using this technique found early loosening of such prostheses due to a strong wear-off and to the intensive debris production(4).
Experiments addressing metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplas-ty in active patients younger than 65 years showed promising outcomes, with a mean implant 4-5 years duration rate above 90%.(2,4,5) Another favorable argument is the reduction of
par-ticles generated from rubbing (debris) when a metal-on-metal surface is employed, with reduced osteolysis, which is a major indication for review in those patients(6).
Recent publications reported that, with the advancements of the metal industry and of prosthesis components, which are increasingly valuing hip biomechanics, indications and previous outcomes with this procedure have improved for individuals below the age of 65(7,8).
This retrospective study assessed early, clinical and X-ray outcomes using this technique and the total metal-on-metal resurfacing prosthesis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between 2002 and 2005, the Traumatology and Orthopaedics Center (a private practice) operated 40 hips (39 patients) using the total metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty technique.
The decision about offering this technical option to patients was based on patients’ age, bone stocks (as measured on X-ray images), and on their expectations towards activities of daily life, including some sports.
In general, this procedure was indicated to ≤ 65 year-old men
and ≤ year-old women. The mean age of patients was 54.40
years (ranging from 21 to 72 years).
PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES OF HIP METAL-ON-METAL
RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY: AN ANALYSIS
OF THE FIRST 40 CASES WITH MEAN FOLLOW-UP
TIME OF YEARS
MaUriCiode Moraes1, rUBens rodrigUes2, roBert Barr3, nelson KeisKe ono4, edson noBorU FUjiKi4, Carlo Milani5
Study conducted at the Traumatology and Orthopaedics Center, Hospital Bandeirantes de São Paulo, and by the Discipline of Locomotive Apparatus Diseases, ABC Medical School. Correspondences to: Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antonio, 3333 - Térreo, CEP:01401-001 - São Paulo - SP - Brasil
1. Master in Health Sciences by ABC Foundation Medical School, Orthopaedic Doctor, Hospital Bandeirantes de São Paulo 2. Orthopaedic Doctor, Hospital Bandeirantes de São Paulo
3. Orthopaedic Doctor, Hospital Bandeirantes de São Paulo
4. Orthopaedic Doctor, Associate Professor, Discipline of Locomotive Apparatus Diseases, ABC Medical School. 5. Full Professor, Chairman of the Discipline of Locomotive Apparatus Diseases, ABC Medical School.
Received in: 01/12/07; approved in: 04/01/07
SUMMARY
Forty hips (39 patients) were submitted to metal-on-metal hip replacement (resurfacing) between 2002 and 2005. Evalua-tion was provided by clinical examinaEvalua-tion and X-ray tests. The authors performed clinical evaluations before and after surgery. The specific criterion applied was the D’Aubigné and Postel’s classification. X-ray images showed radiolu-cent lines around the acetabular component on the zones described by DeLee and Charnley and around the femoral component on the zones described by Amstutz et al. The
mean age was 54.40 years. The minimum follow-up period was 14 months (range:12 to 51 months). The outcomes of 94.44% of the patients in the study were postoperatively rated as satisfactory. There were 2 cases of aseptic loose and no neck-femoral fractures during the follow-up period. The au-thors concluded that this technique and implant alternative is satisfactory, with good early outcomes in a mean follow-up time of three years.
Keywords: Total hip replacement. Hip; Humans
ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008) ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:13-18, 2008)
Citation: Moraes M, Rodrigues R, Barr R, Ono NK, Fujiki EN, Milani C. Preliminary outcomes of hip metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty: an analysis of the first 40 cases with mean follow-up time of 3 years. Acta Ortop Bras. [serial on the Internet]. 2008; 16(1):19-22. Available from URL: http://www.scielo.br/aob.
1
0 1
0
Patients included in the study were required to sign a free and informed consent term, describing the risks inherent to the procedure, problems associated to components’ metal parts, and serum levels of metal ions.
All patients were followed up after surgery for a period of at least 12 months, ranging from 14 to 51 months.
Of the 39 patients in total (40 hips), we lost track of 2, and other 2 showed early septic loosening (before the period of 12 months), being thus excluded from the study. In these cases, a single-step arthroplasty review was made using the hybrid conventional technique with antibiotic cement on the femur (primary components of a prosthesis).
Therefore, 35 patients (36 hips) presenting with variable etiolo-gies were assessed (Table 1, Figure 1). Nineteen patients were males (1 bilateral) and 16 females.
Figure 1 – Clinical case – 55 years old, left side, osteoar-throsis
hinges with the hip 6-8 mm larger. Prepared femurs were pref-erentially placed on a slightly valgus position, with economic cementation, avoiding nail’s metaphyseal region.
No aspiration tubes were used. A rigorous hemostasis was provided and, mobilization and rehabilitation were started as early as possible.
Rehabilitation: patients were encouraged to place partial
loads on the second postoperative day, being discharged from hospital within 4 and 14 days postoperatively (average: 5.20 days). Active exercises and progressive load were indicated until the third postoperative week, when total load was allowed. After the fourth week, the patients were recommended to use only a cane, whenever they felt pain. The return to low-impact sports activities and was allowed for those who used to practice these kind of sports after 12 weeks (three months).
Clinical analysis: preoperatively and postoperatively,
accord-ing to the criteria by D’Aubigné and Postel(9,10) with minimum
follow-up of 12 months (postoperative). These criteria consider pain, gait (ability to ambulate) and hip motion. Each item is graded 1-6, with 6 representing normality. For the statistical analysis of clinical results, we used the methodology by Ono el al(11), starting from the score obtained with the application
of D’Aubigné and Postel’s criteria, being satisfactory (equal or superior to 50 for pain at gait and superior to 4 for joint motion) and unsatisfactory for inferior values compare to the previous ones.
X-ray analysis: controls by simple X-ray images taken at frontal
and lateral planes, were taken on the first, third, sixth and twelfth postoperative months. After the first year, annual X-ray controls were provided. Radiolucent lines around the hip were graded according to DeLee and Charnley apud Amstutz et al.(2) (I,II,III)
and, on the femur, at the zones described by Amstutz et al,(2)
which are divided into 3 (around the short metaphyseal nail) using a score ranging from 0 to 9 (no changes until migration) (Figure 3).
Figure 2 – Metal-on-metal prosthesis, model CORMET r
ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008) ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008)
Kind N %
Osteoarthrosis Osteonecrosis sequel
Hip Congenital Dysplasia sequel Post-trauma arthrosis
(hip fracture-dislocation) Rheumatoid arthritis sequel
25 5 1 4 1 36 69.44 13.89 2.78 11.11 2.78 100.00 Table 1 – Distribution of the 36 hips according to etiology
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The access port employed was the anterolateral (Hardinge modified), with anterior dislocation of the femoral head, fol-lowed by bone preparation and components placement. In the 36 patients, a metal-on-metal hybrid Cormet model prosthesis (Corin-Group/UK) was used (Figure 2). Hips were prepared with 1-mm progressive milling and press-fit fixation, preferably at 45 degrees of abduction with anatomic anteversion. The size of the hip prosthesis ranges from 44 mm to 66 mm and each head
1
0 1
0
RESULTS
Clinical: 2 patients reported persistent pain on the operated
hip. No clinical and laboratory signs of infection were found, with aseptic loosening being considered as a diagnostic hy-pothesis. Control X-ray images showed a radiolucent femoral component: 1 case with score 8 and another one with a score 9. The prosthesis was removed and replaced by conventional hybrid prosthesis with antibiotic cement on the femoral compo-nent. These patients are currently asymptomatic. No technical challenges were seen for removing resurfacing prostheses, and no local metallosis was found.
However, fragments of the synovia and capsule removed from hips showed immunoallergenic changes on the anatomicopath-ological study, consistent to reports by other authors(12,13) . The
study of heads removed after loosening did not show necrosis of the tissue around the prosthesis or on femoral neck. Thus, with the use of a specific questionnaire by D’Aubigné and Postel, and with the analysis based on Ono et al, we reached to the results, according to Table 2.
Figure 3 - Femoral and hip components of the prosthesis
There were no episodes of non-trauma dislocation, with 1 car accident case with dislocation of the operated hip, where a bloodless reduction was provided; this patient is currently as-ymptomatic. Except for 2 cases, the remaining 34 patients did not show infection before 1 year of follow-up. No femoral neck fracture, “Trendelenburg” gait and postoperative neurological changes were seen so far.
X-ray: 2 cases with varus position of the femoral nail and 1 case with excessive valgus. In spite of that, there was no femoral neck fracture so far. For the two patients with aseptic loosening, we found a femoral score of 8 and 9.
Femoral and acetabular radiolucence are depicted on Table 3.
N % Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 34 2 94.44 5.56 Total 36 100.00
ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008) ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008)
acetabular
score number of hips/% femoral score
number of hips/% no radiolucence 0 25 (69.44) 0 (72.22)26 1 zone 1.2 or 3 10 (27.78) 1.2 or 3 6 (16.67) 2 zones 4.5 or 6 1 (2.78) 4.5 or 6 1 (2.78) 3 zones and incomplete 7 0 7 1 (2.78) 3 zones and complete 8 0 8 1 (2.78) migration 9 0 9 1 (2.78)
Table 3 – X-ray analysis
Table 2 – Postoperative outcomes according to the criteria by D’Aubigné and Postel
femur hip
0 = no radiolucence 0 = no radiolucence
1 = zone 2 1 = zone I
2 = zone 1 2 = zone II
3 = zone 3 3 = zone III
4 = zones 1 and 2 4 = zones I and II 5 = zones 2 and 3 5 = zones I and III 6 = zones 1 and 3 6 = zones II and III
7 = zones 1 - 3 (incomplete) 7 = zones I - III (incomplete) 8 = zones 1 - 3 (complete) 8 = zones I - III (complete) 9 = migration 9 = migration
Patients showing changes on X-ray images remain asymptom-atic (including 1 with femoral score 7 – 3 zones incomplete), were guided regarding initial clinical or gait changes.
DISCUSSION
Successful total hip arthroplasties have been reported over the last 2-3 decades. However, the outcomes usually seen in elderly individuals cannot be reproduced in the younger ones. Perhaps, the higher demand showed by the latter is the leading factor for these results(1,2,3).
Former generations of hip resurfacing, with polyethylene hip and metal femoral head have been tested, with disappointing results(14). Early results reported by Amstutz et al., Freeman et al. apud Villar(3) with the same characteristics have also evidenced
early failure within 2 years of follow-up(3). Nevertheless, the
ad-vancements and improvements of the metal industry, combined with modern concepts of biomechanics and tribology employed on the last generations of these prostheses have demonstrated better and encouraging early results(15,16).
Despite of the mean follow-up time of three years, our study demonstrated satisfaction and survival rates of 94.44%, con-sistently to current studies by Amstutz et al.(2), McMinn et al.(4),
Daniel et al.(5) and Beaulé et al.(17). There were two cases of
aseptic loosening, with immunoallergenic response to the mate-rial, a fact also described on literature(12,13). Although we did not
measure the presence of serum metal ions, literature describes these components levels of up to five times higher in the first year in individuals with metal-on-metal arthroplasties when compared to the general population, but there are no clinical evidences of deleterious effects resultant from this fact(12).
Pain, gait and motion have all showed improvements, with scores > 4 according to the criteria by D’Aubigné and Postel, showing that the procedure accomplished its primary objective, i.e., function and pain improvement.
We found relatively high femoral and acetabular radiolucence signs (almost 30%, in variable degrees); however, these signs were not a determinant factor for high loosening and surgical review so far.
Despite of the cases observed at undesirable positions (ex-treme valgus and varus), we did not see neck fractures with displacement, which is the major early complication(18,19).
For both patients requiring prosthesis replacement, no bone necrosis was found on the tissue removed from femoral nail and from the neck, after anatomicopathological analysis,
evidencing that the technique caused no damages to femoral head flow(20,21).
It was our own decision to use the anterolateral access port, based on surgeons’ experience, but it is scientifically validated as less favorable to femoral neck flow injury(22).
The follow-up period on this series was short, with an insufficient number to be able to provide final conclusions, but it was proven to be a good treatment alternative, with success and complica-tion rates consistent to those of the largest reference centers. Prospective randomized double-blind studies comparing total arthroplasty techniques in youngsters with different joint surfaces should potentially provide important results, thus contributing to our study.
We realize there is a learning curve to be followed. Undesirable femoral positions occurred on the first cases of this series, with femoral nail valgus being currently more easily achieved. We started using femoral nail with hydroxyapatite, without ce-ment, aiming to reduce femoral radiolucence and the resultant loosening.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty showed satisfactory clinical results, with a low rate of associ-ated complications, thus constituting a potential option for young patients.
REFERENCES
1. Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87:324-9.
2. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruwn TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg. Am 2004; 86:28-39.
3. Villar R. Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86:157-8. 4. McMinn DJW, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(Suppl):S89-98.
5. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86:177-84.
6. Sieber HP, Rieker CB, Köttig P. Analysis of 118 second-generation metal-on-metal retrieved hip implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81:46-50.
7. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplas-ty: a minimum follow-up of five-years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87:167-70. 8. Pollard TCB, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the
young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip: a five- to seven-year com-parison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88:592-600.
9. D’Aubigné RM, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954; 36:451-75.
10. Charnley J. The long term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip per-formed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972; 54:61-76. 11. Ono NK, Aristide RSA, Honda E, Polesello G. Osteotomia intertrocantérica
val-gizante:resultados a longo prazo. Rev Bras Ortop. 2000; 35:411-5.
12. Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual
lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:18-27.
13. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Ing D, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Koster G, Lohmann CH. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:28-36.
14. Howie DW, Campbell D, McGee M, Cornish BL.Wagner resurfacing hip arthro-plasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72:708-14.
15. Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomized study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip ar-throplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88:721-6.
16. Silva M, Lee KH, Heisel C, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 87:40-6. 17. Beaule PE, Lee JL, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC, Ebramzadeh E. Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86:2015-21.
18. Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resur-facing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87:463-4.
19. Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ. Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86:1874-7. 20. Campbell P, Mirra J, Amstutz HC. Viability of femoral heads treated with
resur-facing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15:120-3.
21. Little CP, Ruiz AL, Harding IJ, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Murray DW, Atha-nasou NA. Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87:320-3.
22. Steffen RT, Smith SR, Urban JPG, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW. The effect of hip resurfacing on oxygen concentration in the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87:1468-74.
ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:23-27, 2008) ACTA ORTOP BRAS 16(1:19-22, 2008)
